That's right, Supreme Court Roundup!
In a move that might prevent candidates from saying anything about anything ever again, the Supreme Court has decided to allow groups unaffiliated with campaigns to produce issue ads that mention candidates as long as they do not urge a vote for or against those candidates and not be subject to the provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Get ready to hear "I'm concerned about what [X] said about [X]" as she grips her children closer. "To think he wants to be Senator!"
However, in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case where a high school student across the street was suspended for displaying a message on a sheet, the court ruled that the message was not protected speech because educators have an interest in communication their pro-education anti drug message and shouldn't have interference from "sophomoric" messages.
Perhaps if he wrote Bong Hits 4 McCain-Feingold.
Comments (6)
Both decisions are total BS and I'm having a really hard time deciding which I find to be more ridiculous.
Right now I'm leaning towards the bong hits case. I think they just made up a new rule for pro-drug messages that basically takes it out of the traditional strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions.
I fear we're gonna get some godawful decisions on Thursday, the last day of the term...
Yeah the Bong Hits one is terrible, I am going to vote for it. The guy was across the street from the school at his house! Try getting out from under that fact pattern. Yikes. I would have felt better if they upheld his suspension on the grounds that his message violated the Establishment clause.
MOTS, that is what I thought at first too, that they were on a public street, and thus, not under the principal's authority. Apparently, however, they were on the public street b/c the school let them outside under teacher supervision to watch the torch. So technically, there is an argument to be made that they were at a school sanctioned event. It still makes my stomach turn though, especially in conjunction with the other case.
I like the establishment clause angle ;-)
Right, that was the court's reasoning as well, but I thought it was also his house (sort of coincidentally) I will go find his brief and report back.
Most illustrative is Thomas' separate opinion waxing on about back in the day when teachers taught and students shut up.
And there's your future if a Repub wins in '08.
Just wait for Thursday folks...that's when I expect the first major blow against Brown v. Board of Education to be struck.